Klax, would you help me understand where you’re coming from, please? (I’ll leave my request wide open, rather than venturing guesses that mis-/redirect.) What is your thinking behind this statement?
Again, can you fill this out some more?
I am interested (I think) in both what thinking/reasoning is behind your statements as well as how you have achieved what seems to be a high level of certainty. Thanks.
Such beautiful music!
I believe the answer to this question is going to be more related to how you perceive god than anything demonstrable with science.
Theistic evolution does not require God to intervene but it doesn’t prevent it either. And so it will come down to if you believe god would do that kind of thing, but he is definitely able to do it. After all their is not much that will limite and almighty being.
After all the part of difference between YEC and TE or EC is we don’t see any reason that God would create the world in 7 days then give the impression it been around for billion of years. We find that deceitful and we don’t believe God is deceitful. He’d absolutely able to do it in 7 days, he could have created last Wednesday but we don’t think he did because it doesn’t fit his character.
So in all, I can see any good why he would intervienne. After all God performes miracles, who are we to set the limits of his miracles. But I can also imagine that god perfectly tuned the universe to have the desired result without requiring his intervention, he is almighty and omniscient, he can do this. Now the later does start to get uncomfortably close the deism for me but wouldn’t say that I can’t be persuaded.
Most noble of you Kendel.
There is no end of in-filling : ) And one has to do all the work oneself. The following is therefore futile. It cannot be transferred to you. One has to dig, plough one’s own furrow. This is only mine. It can never be yours.
The holes in the do-nut.
First filling (jam=jelly).
Eternal, infinite nature is perfectly, fully self explanatory. The fact that we can never know, in our mid-scale minds, between the quantum and the cosmic, what the explanation is, is irrelevant. Just fill in the gap with nature. There is no gap for God, for intentionality, for purpose, for meaning. There is no need for God. Apart from our evolved, existential, emotional need. Filling the gap with God makes the problem infinitely worse, creates an even greater even more unfillable gap. It can’t even be filled with meaningless and ultimately unknowable nature. God explains nothing of nature. Why set Him up?
There is no escaping this but desire. The only warrant for, object of, desire is that of the Church that Paul, Peter and Jesus’ brothers were writing to, up and running historically immediately after His death. The only, the one hope is Jesus. Nothing else in reality can be posited as requiring God. But God stepping in to nature. If He did that, then He is the ground of eternal, infinite natural and transcendent being and all is well for all as it always has been. The Church is the only evidence we have for Jesus, whatever He was. And it’s all too easy for Him to be entirely natural.
Second filling (vanilla!)
Assuming that Jesus is the proof of God, He is still the only proof. If He is then the Church and its Apostolic story is the subsequent work of the Spirit, despite the flesh. Including His. If He isn’t, it’s just a benign conspiracy, starting with Mary. If He is, then the evolution of God in the OT is also by the Spirit, again, despite the weakest possible flesh. Jonah is therefore a Spirit inspired story. If it is not, then we are a remarkably evolved creature in every exclusive way. And the best of us was Jesus, the end of the prophets including ‘Jonah’, the peak of entirely natural moral development upon which all other is dependent. If it is (a Spirit inspired story), then we’re not that smart and need the Spirit throughout our moral evolution. The trouble is we have always been that smart. Jonah was late to the party. And in that regard, so was Jesus.
But. Despite that, despite everything, despite the absence of prophecy by modern rational criteria, I want Him to be for real. But even if He is, ‘Jonah’ isn’t. God does not change.
There is no ‘if’ about God’s existence.
Does a parent tinker with a child’s genetic code?
I think if my child had a genetic disease and I could intervene I would. When we use certain medications like anti-depressants, they take 3 weeks to work. That is because signals have to travel to the neuron’s nucleus and affect the transcribing of new proteins and new neuro-receptors. They then have to travel down the axon of the cell to take their place at the end. Sometimes this changes that neuron permanently - in a way we are affecting genes.
I know the Lord allows great suffering and it is easy to be philosophical until one is in great pain. The question of why He does this is one of the greatest stumbling blocks for non-believers (and often believers). But only God knows - if through that suffering, the child would become a Jonas Salk or Alexander Fleming.
With regard to tinkering with our children. Loving them or fixing them are not exclusive. You may be a wiser parent than I am. I have 3 grown sons and I am constantly praying for them or trying to tinker (they won’t let me) as lovingly as I can (my wife is more subtle)
God is both a designer and a shepherd. I love what CS Lewis says that the next great leap in Evolution has already taken place, when he makes us New creations. (2Cor5:17). Can’t wait for that final product to come to market.
As a physician we are trained to look at people both compassionately and mechanistically. I don’t know about you - but I am constantly asking Him to fix the machines that are broken around me, the broken human lives that I encounter.
My ticker (my heart) is in His hands. I use to teach stress management and a fit man’s heart beats 10,000 beats less per night than an unfit person. He knows how many ticks are left in my own heart- but I think sometimes in answer to prayer he may prolong our days. Wasn’t it Hezekiah who prayed for more time? 2 Kings 20:5 and was granted that. He designed the clock and keeps it ticking like a Timex until the right time.
That looks like your first post here… there’s usually a system generated message that says so saying to welcome the participant. I’m willing to welcome you without the prompting. Welcome! ; - )
Thanks for your pithy comments. I am reminded of a story in The Road Less Traveled by M Scott Peck, MD a Times Bestseller for 13 years. This man struggled as I have with believing in a God who has allowed suffering, like I was before I became an agnostic and later atheist. His encounter made him a hermit for 20 years until he decided he needed to talk about it and went to see Peck. I appreciate atheism because in a way I think it is very courageous. Joining this group came from reading The Language of God and I was struck by a passage. I sent that quote to my son along with this e-mail
It is strange that I have placed something above God, in a way, but of course, there is nothing above God. My love for science is a love and search for understanding the truth. As best I can be aware of my many limitations, I do believe that I as a man and we as humans, if courageous enough and if persistent enough can find truth. I had an intellectual patient, a PhD, working in a brain trust, who early in his therapy denied such a thing as truth, but common sense and years of toil in the halls of neurosis have cured him of this delusion. I have said that I am not interested in believing in God- if there is no God I can accept that and in fact, I find this a little freeing. But decades of life, of thinking and reading have led me towards concluding that God is real and personal and knowable. I am comforted that having been an atheist there are many men of science, like Frances Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health and head of the human genome project and author of “The Language of God” which I am just finishing reading whose pursuit of truth have led them out of the darkness of atheism. Men of letters like CS Lewis also a former atheist and numerous others are reminders that intelligence is no hindrance to finding God. In reading this section of Collins’ book, I was struck by the phrase, “The Building of Truth” held up by the pillars of science and faith.
Thank you Frank. I sit here just outside the fireball radius of our very own three quarter megaton city killer. I’d see the downstream flash before the wall exploded on me. Rationally God is meaningless, impossible, unnecessary. But I sat in a circle with the dispossessed this evening and thanked God for that, for them, for us. Lived in that as-good-as-it-gets moment. I was asked to lead in prayer, by the most excellent, inspiring, faith renewing for that duration young mum who leads, which I easily do, I was asked for my opinion on Jesus’ first miracle, which I love, the mother of God blowing His cover. I find Him completely credible. I just gave Him a wave-salute and felt a solar plexus pulse that made me grunt and tear up. I miss him. My too little too late flowering intellect has deconstructed God and I can’t put Him back together again. And counter-examples actually make it worse : )
But thank you, I know that is the secret to happiness. Gratitude. Right up to the incandescently bursting wall. God bless you Frank.
Martin
PS Lewis, Collins didn’t pursue truth. They pursued meaning. Jesus is the only candle of meaning in the infinite, eternal night of meaninglessness. Not mere atheism which is childishly mischaracterized as theophobia; active exclusion, hatred, refusal of God. God does not work. Yet Jesus beguiles. Awes. I defy you to find anyone who has a meaningful, necessary God without Jesus.
Thank you, Klax.
I’ve read through your reply once, fairly quickly. I’ll let all that filling settle a bit and think on it more. Then I’ll reread.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions thoughtfully. It helps me understand the thoughts behind your replies and posts elsewhere.
Kendel
God is called our father, and a father does not design his children.
I think I would too. But I would draw line somewhere between disease and the uniqueness of a human being wouldn’t you? I also don’t think the word “tinker” is the right word in the former case. What aspects of their character are to be called a disease? How far do you go in using genetics to control and make them what you want them to be?
Oh? And what are your reasons for doing so?
So there is no difference between living things and machines? It is just about making them fit the design specifications you want? You only love them for what they are when they are what you wanted them to be?
Anyone can be both a designer and a shepherd. The point is that the former applies to non-living objects and the latter to living things.
I think that is only possible because there are limits to what you can do. Since God has no such limits (not by nature), I think this means He must impose limitations on Himself. He does if He wants a real relationship. And the fact of the matter is this fits the facts of the world we live in. Either He imposes limits on Himself, or such an all powerful loving being simply doesn’t exist – not one who is involved in our lives anyway.
Those sure seem to have an adversarial, confrontational tone. Is that an example to help me be any more gracious? It’s also not a great welcome to a new forum participant.
You can call me on that @jpm. I can explain it scientifically as long as your arm. God does not come in to it. Not theistically, as He only does that in Christ and by the Spirit. The Spirit interacts with human spirits. Not homozygous sex plumage colour genes.
Nay lass, He’s our Father. But yes, He designs nothing except incarnations.
And maybe carnations?
Since evolution is doing such s great job in creating mallards and other beautiful ducks, God does not need to intervene. It is bad to guild the lily so to speak. When humans intervene to “improve” nature, we often make a mess that we now have to try to clean up.
God has not intervened to make Putin stop his nasty war, but God has “intervened” to inspire Ukrainians to stand up to naked aggression, and inspired others even Russians to stand with them.
God does not intervene in our lives, but God does give His people love, compassion, peace, courage, and faith.
Maybe you have not been reading thoroughly.
Did you know that our food crops are a result of artificial selection?
Seeing as you asked @jpm.
One hundred years ago, the great, remarkable J.B.S. proclaimed:
When in the F1 offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous sex (heterogametic sex).
In mammals males are heterozygous (XY), females homozygous (XX).
In birds males are homozygous (ZZ), females heterozygous (WZ).
Biology being biology there are rare exceptions that prove the rule.
So, cross a male and a female bird from two closely related species resulting in viable (they hatch) offspring. In birds, by Haldane’s rule, the heterozygous (WZ) female will be sterile or otherwise maimed: hybrid breakdown, the opposite of vigour.
Avian respiratory protein (rp), nuclear chromosomal (Z,W) and mitochondrial (m) genetics:
Homozygous Male - father - bird (Z.(i).rp x Z.(i).rp(a) + Mm(c).rp) → sperm (Z.(i).rp)(a)
x
Heterozygous Female - mother - bird (W x Z.(i).rp + Fm.(j).rp(b)) → daughter egg (W + Fm.(j).rp(b))
'=
Daughter bird ((F)W x ((M)Z.(i).rp(a) + Fm.(j).rp(b))
A daughter bird gets some critical respiratory protein (avian haemoglobin) genes from her father’s nuclear Z chromosome (a) and some from her mother’s mitochondrial genes (b). The W female sex chromosome has no respiratory protein gene. Mitochondria (eukaryote discrete powerhouses with their own minimal set of maternal genes (j) AND maximal set in the nucleus inherited from their father (i)) are practically entirely inherited from mothers, in their eggs, throughout all sexual species (biology being biology there are always outlier exceptions as above, yer know multiple sigmas out). Male respiratory protein genes are never passed on from male mitochondria; eggs consume sperm. The compatibility of respiratory protein genes is absolutely critical for respiratory protein function, the slightest mismatch results in an inviable embryo - if it hatched, it couldn’t fly, effectively if at all, so why hatch? Flight (muscle) is incredibly demanding of respiration (burning fuel with oxygen). Such mismatch is so deleterious it’s headed off at the pass. Killed by apoptosis - suicide - before hatching. It’s not mysterious. Flight muscle is maimed; its metabolic demands cannot be met.
Why? Because the respiratory protein specified by the critical combination of male sperm nuclear gene (a) and female egg mitochondrial gene (b) is maimed. Because mitochondrial biogenesis is from male nuclear (i) and female mitochondrial (j) genes remember. They must be 100% compatible. That’s entirely down to the mother.
Here it gets hypothetical:
The mother must select her mate with extreme care if her daughter is to hatch. If the detailed pattern of the plumage including its behavioural display signals the mitochondrial type, the female has something to go on. It’s not a big if. Most colour pigments are synthesized in… mitochondria (c).
Science will tell.
So where can God anthropomorphically infantilize this fully evolved process? And why?
PS Mitochondrial organelles are descended from among the oldest bacterial symbionts, 1,500 of their biogenesis genes have been absorbed by the homozygous nucleus in endosymbiotic eukaryotes. Awesome what blind, purposeless stochastic processes have achieved cumulatively at every level isn’t it? Here they are describing themselves!
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.